People v. Willard

Opinion

BEACH, J.

Nature of Appeal:

A jury found appellant guilty of robbery while armed. He appeals claiming error in refusing his request to voir dire the victim-complaining witness to determine his competency.

[239]

Facts:

The evidence clearly established that one night appellant asked victim, whom he had met two weeks earlier, to help get appellant’s car started. When appellant and victim arrived at the car, he was robbed of cash and several diamond rings by appellant and a waiting accomplice. In language of the street, victim had been “setup.” Appellant knew of victim’s unusual habit of wearing diamond rings on all his fingers.

Victim also testified that the accomplice suggested cutting off victim’s hand or fingers to remove the rings after first robbing him, that appellant and the accomplice returned in a few minutes and took cash and rings from his pockets, and that the accomplice (the gunman) suggested killing victim at a junkyard.

Victim also testified about attempts on his life by strangers and acquaintances by spiking his drinks, a rape and attack on his daughter to persuade her to also spike victim’s drinks and an anonymous phone call to dissuade victim from testifying in court.

Discussion:

Before victim took the witness stand, defendant counsel moved to voir dire victim to determine his competence to testify. Counsel stated to the court that the previous trial

1

record showed that victim personally believed that after the robbery there was a conspiracy to kill him by spiking his drinks with PCP. Defense counsel characterized victim’s statement as “outrageous,” necessitating a voir dire examination of victim to bring out his “present insanity or past insanity. ” The trial court denied the motion stating that the matter could be explored during cross-examination.

Defendant contends the trial court thus committed reversible error.